reading 10

From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?

• If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?
• If you are against Net Neutrality, explain why it is unnecessary or undesirable. How would you respond to concerns about providing level playing fields or preventing unfair discrimination by service provides?
• In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”.

Ironically enough, in my procrastination for doing my homework today, I was reading theSkimm and it even referenced net neutrality—in regards to Netflix. Netflix recently exposed that they have been limiting streaming speeds over certain cellular data networks (AT&T and Verizon specifically). They said they were attempting to keep users data usage in check. And they were saying that this was not violating net neutrality, which they are big supporters of.

Net neutrality is “the idea that your cellular, cable, or phone internet connection should treat all websites and services the same. Big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to treat them differently so they can charge you more depending on what you use” (I thought this website did a really nice job of explaining it). So Netflix wants net neutrality so that anyone using their service doesn’t have to pay more to use it. Cable companies want Netflix to pay more because there is often very high traffic on their site, but obviously Netflix doesn’t want to pay an increased rate on something they already have, and feel is unjust as is.

 

I think that initially, when reading about net neutrality, the initial predisposition would be to compare it to Obamacare as Senator Cruz compares it. Net neutrality doesn’t involve government directly, but rather prevents ISPs the ability to charge certain websites more money for streaming capabilities. It prevents service providers from creating monopolies in the industry and from making money for running an internet service during peak times at the same bandwidth they have at lower demand. To me, it’s very clear that there should be net neutrality—there only people being hurt by having it really are the service providers and those in the government being paid to support those ISPs. And honesty, they make enough money that I don’t feel too bad. If restricting the Internet means that certain people can’t use it and access it a the availability they can now, then it definitely isn’t worth the fractionally faster speeds. The picture below is a fun and easy way to understand net neutrality.

So in regards to the internet being a basic right—as of now, it is considered one, and so to take away access to it would infuriate the American population. No one should be deprived of the wealth of information that is contained in the Internet, especially not by IPS or the government. The beauty of the internet is that it was created in order for people to use it and to share information on it and to bring about a smarter population on the whole. Almost all people have access to a landline telephone—the internet needs to be the same way. The internet is one of the greatest educational resources available, and to restrict access to something that was never created to be restricted would be cruel.

 

 

project 03

Option 2: Security + Encryption

Project 03

• Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government?
• How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it?
• In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

When we discussed this in class, I came to the conclusion that I want to be able to be in control of my information. I don’t think I’m a very private person, mainly because there really isn’t anything very interesting to know about me, so if you want to know it, go ahead, but whatever I tell you will probably put you to sleep. Even saying that though, there is some information I would not like to get in the hands of certain people—stalkers, hackers, pedophiles, and the like. So personally, I am going to be careful with the information I give out. But if someone else, like the government decides to access the information that I choose not to advertise on the internet, then that’s not really cool with me. I want to be able to be in control, and therefore, I think that encryption should be a fundamental right of US citizens.

So when the case of FBI vs. Apple came out, I was on the side of Apple, because all the devices I use are Apple, and I want to know that whatever information I store on them won’t get into the wrong hands. Again, it’s not like there’s anything crazy important on here, but I do have my credit card numbers stored on my devices, and if Apple created a backdoor to their devices and that somehow got in the wrong hands, I wouldn’t want to jeopardize my money or my private identification information.

In terms of support, I don’t think anyone is necessarily fighting the overall right to encryption—I think that so many people support it that anyone who tries to fight it will gain no support from the masses. In terms of social, people can share on social media what they want—they have control over that, and so if more information than they want, then that is their fault. But in instances like the one of FBI vs. Apple where there is this not a fight for complete loss of encryption, but just in a specific case, then I think there will be more people fighting for the government’s right to protect versus personal privacy rights.

Overall though, I think that personal encryption will win. For son long it has been the norm—that people have the right to privacy, and since they’ve had it, they’re not going to want to give it up. And I think that people will not let the government take over their right to privacy, and honestly, what does the government need with all of the stupid texts I send in my family group message anyways?

reading 09

From the readings, what exactly the DMCA say about piracy? What provisions does it have for dealing with infringement? What exactly are the safe-harbor provisions?

• Is it ethical or moral for users to download or share copyrighted material? What if they already own a version in another format? What if they were just “sampling” or “testing” the material?
• Have you participated in the sharing of copyrighted material? If so, how did you justify your actions (or did you not care)? Moreover, why do you think so many people (regardless of whether or not you do) engage in this behavior even though it is against the law?
• Does the emergence of streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify address the problem of piracy, or will are these services not sufficient? Is piracy a solvable problem? Is it a real problem?

The DMCA is an additional to the Copyright Act and says security-related tasks that involve circumventing security systems, encryption research, or reverse engineering software [are] illegal.

 Due to the ease with which digital works can be copied and distributed worldwide virtually instantaneously, copyright owners will hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy. Legislation implementing the treaties provides this protection and creates the legal platform for launching the global digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted works. It will facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies, music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of American creative genius. It will also encourage the continued growth of the existing off-line global marketplace for copyrighted works in digital format by setting strong international copyright standards. Copyright of Digital Information

The safe-harbor provisions are the government’s way of ensuring protection for service providers. If they follow a set of guidelines set out by the government they can reside in the safe harbors and be protected from any impending storms. It’s a way for ensuring that service providers won’t have to pay for violations of copyright laws within the safe harbors guidelines.

It isn’t ethical for people to download or share information that isn’t theirs. Even if they can justify it to themselves—they might justify it by saying it’s just “sampling” or “testing.” If it’s copyrighted, then it isn’t moral to do it. But that doesn’t stop people. Because why pay when you can get something for free? And if you’re moral and feel inclined to pay for these things, why is it ok that people get for free what you pay for? It doesn’t seem fair. If not everyone pays, then why should you pay? This is where the slippery slope starts. It’s like an older sibling justifying their wrong actions by saying the younger sibling did it first, but obviously the older sibling should know better. Younger kids can be guilted into feeling bad for doing something wrong when they know they shouldn’t. Adults on the other hand look for things to be fair. And when you’ve got free riders who try to get things that other people pay for, the people who are paying for it are going to be less inclined to want to pay for it themselves.

I have definitely felt this way before—why should I pay the jacked up iTunes and Target prices for albums when I can just download them for free off the internet? I’ve definitely shared an album on a CD or over air drop with a friend before. It’s almost easier than buying it, and definitely cheaper. So why not? I don’t buy my music or movies anymore, but rather subscribe to streaming services that allow me a much cheaper a more versatile option than purchasing individual  songs, tv shows, and movies. When I did, I didn’t have a job, so it was my allowance money I was spending on music, so if my friend allowed me to save a few of those previous dollars, then I was going to take advantage of that. And it was really easy—I could just burn it on a CD and pass it on. Or I could send it via AirDrop. So easy.

In regards to streaming services, I really thought the article Whatever Happened to the War on Privacy? said it well. Streaming services give you the most bang for your buck while also being within the bounds of copyright laws and giving artists and actors payment for their work (though they might not believe they receive enough for their works). But I’ll take the music, tv shows, and movies at a set price when I have access to thousands of them at my fingertips.

reading 08

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.

Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.

Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

Patents protect peoples ideas and inventions and art and other creative effects from being copied by other people. It’s a way for an inventor or creator to take credit for their work and get paid for it, fully and solely, and to prevent other people from taking their ideas and claiming them as their own and being paid for it. Patents ensure that everyone’s ideas are respected and they are given credit for their hard work. They ensure that those who put the effort in receive the benefits—they make things fair. They also motivate people to continue to invent and research and learn more because there is an incentive to their doing so. Patents don’t intrinsically seem to be a hinder to the world—it’s when those patents are infringed upon or people attempt to steal other people’s patents that issues arise.

I think patents should be kept and used, and not only because they are the reason I’m able to go to Notre Dame (my dad is a patent lawyer). Patents make things fair. And that’s what I think I find most important—that things are equal. If someone puts in the work to discover something new, then they should be rewarded for their efforts. And this is the problem for drug companies if patents didn’t exist. Other companies might fare better.

A common argument against patents is that they hinder invention because if a company holds a patent for 20 years, it means that no one else can attempt to fix it or develop it further and make it better. But I would like to object and say that maybe it’s the opposite—maybe companies are fighting so hard to avoid breaking patents that they end up discovering a new way to do things. The smartphone patent wars are something that come to mind. All of the major cell phone industries are in this race to be the first to create and perfect the newest smartphone technology. Apple has a very different touch screen interface than most other smartphone companies, and that’s probably because Apple patented their way of designing it so that other companies couldn’t copy it, so instead, they worked around it and developed a new way of perfecting the touch screen.

Patents are often very nit-picky. They have these little minute details that companies fight over, and these are the types of cases my dad covers. It’s all about trying to find a way to do something in a different way so that it doesn’t infringe on another companies patent. And this is where new invention arises.

Patents should be granted for software and not just physical objects. I can only imagine the number of patents on my Mac operating system. I know that certain patent cases deal with how certain aspects of closing out of an application on your phone. So obviously, with the way that computers and cell phones have developed in the past decades, software is equally as vital in the individuality of devices and how they work. So software ideas should be protected in the same way.

Patent trolls means the system is obviously working—not efficiently, but it’s working. It is the trolls that improperly reap the benefits of others hard work. But not without compensating the inventor for their patents. I think Ilkka Rahnasto says it well:

“The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for.”

Companies don’t need to hinder the growth by not sharing ideas for 20 years, they just want to be compensated for their hard work and for getting their first. If patent trolls feel the need to hinder invention so be it—you’ve got many other companies in the race to continue to grow invention and technology that if some people decide to make life difficult for everyone else that’s an unfortunate roadblock, but obviously isn’t completely stopping invention (Moore’s law is an example of this). Ultimately, we should keep patents to protect inventors. Unfortunately the system may be abused by patent trolls, but as are many other parts of the government, and that’s why there are lawyers to fight such things and to try and keep the system fair.

reading 07

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with Cloud Computing? What exactly is Cloud Computing? Considering the Internet meme that “There is no cloud. It’s just someone else’s computer”:

• As developer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe any experiences you’ve had in using the Cloud as a development platform, what led you to use it, and if you plan on using it in the future.
• As a consumer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe what sort of Cloud services you use on a regular basis. What trade-off are you making in utilizing these platforms?

The other weekend I went to an IEEE conference where we had some people from Workiva, a company that creates a cloud-based compliance and risk platform used by many major companies for SEC compliance. What they talked about was cloud-computing and the security behind it and what it means for us as engineers and as consumers. The focus was using the cloud as a computing utility, and how it can work to our advantage.

They spoke about how the cloud is actually a very useful thing—you can store large amounts of data, that would require multiple servers and data rooms offsite. And you can access it any time and you can harness the extra power to run operations at a faster and higher speed—such as compressing human genomes, or having thousands of people play Worlds of Warcraft at the same time.

For example, the company I worked for last summer, an engineering construction consulting firm, stores all of their data offline. They have thousands of different blue prints and designs stored at a separate location because in this instance, they didn’t need to always have the information ready at a moments notice, and so it was cheaper to store it offsite than to try and accommodate the storage and power consumption required to handle such massive amounts of data in a small Chicago office space. They did have several servers at the office, which many companies actually use, called a hybrid cloud, in order to run AutoCAD and Revit, two different modeling systems that required a lot in order to run. So therefore, it was beneficial to be able to use those servers purely for running AutoCAD and Revit, rather than storing data. Ironically enough, this company actually designs the data centers used by cloud computing companies. These data centers are heavily temperature controlled and designed purely to be as efficient as possible—in terms of power, physical space, and storage space.

But back to Workiva. Something the presenters said really stood out to me: “Companies pay us money to protect their information.” They did talk about security breaches they’ve seen—Mongo HQ, but also with Snapchat. A simple break in Snapchat’s security algorithm meant that millions of users private phone numbers became public.

Obviously by giving data to another company, you are relinquishing some control of that information, but it is also the goal of the cloud-computing company to ptrotect that data as much as possible.In terms of security with cloud computing, the company that stores your data is being paid to protect it. And they’re being paid to prevent it from being broken into by hackers, and they’re also being paid to protect it from government investigation as much as possible too. I looked at AWS’s Privacy Policy to see what their thoughts were on all of this. And this is what I found:

AWS will not disclose, move, access or use customer content except as provided in the customer’s agreement with AWS.

They also adhere to the Safe Harbor program designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Ultimately the program says this:

• Notice – Individuals must be informed that their data is being collected and about how it will be used.They must provide information about how individuals can contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints.
• Choice – Individuals must have the option to opt out of the collection and forward transfer of the data to third parties.
• Onward Transfer – Transfers of data to third parties may only occur to other organizations that follow adequate data protection principles.
• Security – Reasonable efforts must be made to prevent loss of collected information.
• Data Integrity – Data must be relevant and reliable for the purpose it was collected for.
• Access – Individuals must be able to access information held about them, and correct or delete it if it is inaccurate.
• Enforcement – There must be effective means of enforcing these rules.

I agree with what a lot of these authors said about cloud computing—that the benefits of using the cloud outweigh the security benefits. The Department of Defense claims to have its own cloud computing system. But actually, it’s just their own private servers, which isn’t actually a cloud based system at all, just some extra servers at all. This I think brings the entire idea of ethical cloud-computing into perspective for me. For the cloud to be as secure as possible for each company, they would have to have their own personal cloud but that defeats the whole purpose because that just means they’d have more of their own servers, which is what they’re trying to move away from in the first place. In the same way that you won’t lay your own pipe, power lines, or telephone wires, neither would you have your own servers—it’s makes more sense to outsource it.